[Equest-users] LEED Core & Shell questions
James Hansen
JHANSEN at ghtltd.com
Tue Aug 6 10:20:18 PDT 2013
I've been on several proven provider calls where this has been discussed
with GBCI, and in general, their feeling is:
1) If there are no tenant drawings available, even if the design
*intent* is FCUs with high efficiency ECM motors (or something to that
effect), unless the core and shell scope actually shows specification
and installation of the FCUs, the proposed model should use App G
systems
2) If there are tenant drawings available (particularly if they happen
to cover a large portion of the CS building), then GBCI is OK using your
proposed systems in the proposed model.
However, in all of our projects that have gone thru the proven provider
program, all of them were Core and Shell projects with proposed central
chilled water systems, floor-by-floor VAV AHUs, and future tenant VAV
boxes. In this case, we were designing everything except for the VAV
boxes, so it was really only a question of whether we had to use
parallel FP terminals with 0.33 W / cfm (App G), or if we could use our
design intent which was series VAV low temp FP terminals with higher
efficiency motors.
In your case, you don't have an air distribution system designed, so it
is probably a little more complicated. Your tenants could install
anything from FCUs to VAV AHUS with VAV boxes.
If you have a complete set of tenant drawings, or you require tenants to
use a specific HVAC system via a legally binding lease, then you will
probably be OK using your design intent for the proposed model (YMMV).
You should definitely document this for EAp2/EAc1.
GHT Limited
James Hansen, P.E., LEED AP
Senior Associate
1010 N. Glebe Road, Suite 200
Arlington, VA 22201-4749
703-243-1200 (office)
703-338-5754 (cell)
703-276-1376 (fax)
www.ghtltd.com <http://www.ghtltd.com/>
From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Mickey
Bush
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 12:06 PM
To: 'Ellis, David'; 'Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.'
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] LEED Core & Shell questions
I have a specific application related to the questions posed by David.
Proposed System - We have a core and shell project that includes a
central CHW and HW plant as well as a dedicated outdoor air unit (with
energy recovery). The design intent is to support tenant installation of
fan coil units with outside air ducted to the spaces from the DOAS unit.
Baseline System - Based on the building size the baseline system is
System 7 - VAV with reheat.
Questions:
1. What should be modeled as the tenant HVAC system in the
proposed model? One approach is to use fan coil units to align with the
design intent. But, this thread has recommended using the Appendix G
baseline for the tenant space, which in our case would be System 7 - VAV
with reheat.
2. If we model fan coil units, should we follow appendix G
specifics for fan power and other operating parameters despite the fact
that fan coil units are not specifically an option in Appendix G?
3. I believe the tenant design is complete (or nearly complete)
with fan coil units. Should we make use of the tenant drawings to model
the HVAC system? (The tenant design is under a separate contract.)
Thanks,
Mickey
Mickey Bush, PE, LEED AP
DMI
300 Chestnut Street Suite 150
Needham, MA 02492
Phone: 781-449-5700 x13
From: Ellis, David [mailto:David.Ellis at hdrinc.com]
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 3:02 PM
To: Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] LEED Core & Shell questions
If the shell space is not yet fully designed, the understood guidance is
that the ASHRAE baseline system is to be used for the shell spaces. My
question is if the shell space intended design approach is evident (by
system infrastructure installed to support future tenants) via lease
documents, has anyone been required to prove the intended system
approach performance as well?
Thanks
David Ellis
PE (VA, MD, DC)
LEED AP
CEM
PMP
HDR Architecture Inc
Energy Services, New Construction
1101 King Street, Suite 400 | Alexandria, VA 22314
703.647.7735 | c: 703.343.6758
David.Ellis at hdrinc.com <mailto:first.last at hdrinc.com> |
hdrarchitecture.com <http://www.hdrinc.com/markets/architecture>
<http://www.facebook.com/HDRarchitecture>
<http://twitter.com/#%21/HDRArchitecture>
<http://www.youtube.com/user/HDRarchitecture>
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/hdrarchitecture/sets/>
<http://www.architizer.com/en_us/firms/view/hdr-architecture/8916/>
From: Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr. [mailto:poleary1969 at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 2:36 PM
To: Ellis, David
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] LEED Core & Shell questions
what do you mean by "if the building approach for tenant fit-out defines
a tenant design approach which is different from the baseline..." ?
for leed purposes if the building approach for tenant fit-out is NOT
leed compliant per the appendix 4 quote below (or CS grey box at top of
page 274 of the 2009 edition of the leed reference guide) then the 90.1
baseline must be used in both proposed and baseline.
either the design approach is different from the baseline and complies
with the requirements mentioned (appendix 4/page 274 of 2009 edition) or
it is not & the baseline must be used in both the proposed and baseline
simulations (no savings claimed by whatever is actually in the design
approach that does not meet the leed requirements for sale/lease
agreements).
my edition of the 2009 edition, page 274, CS grey box title is: Credit
for Tenant-implement Efficiency Measures. it is in the eac1 section,
right after the large requirement table in section 6. calculations.
On 8/5/13 7:07 AM, Ellis, David wrote:
Anthony, Patrick, Bill and the list,
I too have a keen interest in answering the question below (which might
only be answered by USGBC):
Per the C&S Appendix 2 guidance (reference noted in Bill's original
question below),
? "The core and shell building is defined as the parts of the
building that are not tenant space. Any constraints or guidance issued
to the tenant, such as a maximum level of lighting density or
restrictions on occupancy type, must be outlined in the tenant lease or
sales agreement (see Appendix 4)."
? "Model the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC)
system as described in the design documents. If the HVAC system is not
yet designed, use the same HVAC system as the baseline model, per
ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007, Table G3.1.1A."
? "If the team is pursuing any additional energy-saving
opportunities not associated with the core and shell areas, outline the
opportunities or requirements in the tenant lease or sales agreement
(see Appendix 4)."
And Appendix 4 (
http://www.usgbc.org/resources/appendix-4-tenant-lease-or-sales-agreemen
t
<http://www.usgbc.org/resources/appendix-4-tenant-lease-or-sales-agreeme
nt> ),
? "Compliance through a binding tenant lease or sales agreement
can be pursued as an alternative to or in conjunction with the standard
approach to LEED for Core & Shell credit documentation. Clearly identify
which components of the credit will be implemented as part of the
developer's scope of work, and which portions will be part of the
tenants' scope of work and enforced through binding tenant lease or
sales agreements."
Per guidance above, for spaces not yet designed ASHRAE Baseline is to be
presumed, unless specific measures are designed in that enhance the
baseline approach. If those measures are in the C&S design intended for
tenant use, then they must be included in any binding lease agreement
material (such as sales information or design guideline/specification).
What is not clear is if the building approach for tenant fit-out defines
a tenant design approach which is different from the baseline. Does
anyone have experience with being required to show that the defined
approach also performs?
Regards,
Dave
David Ellis
PE (VA, MD, DC)
LEED AP
CEM
PMP
HDR Architecture Inc
Energy Services, New Construction
1101 King Street, Suite 400 | Alexandria, VA 22314
703.647.7735 | c: 703.343.6758
David.Ellis at hdrinc.com <mailto:first.last at hdrinc.com> |
hdrarchitecture.com <http://www.hdrinc.com/markets/architecture>
<http://www.facebook.com/HDRarchitecture>
<http://twitter.com/#%21/HDRArchitecture>
<http://www.youtube.com/user/HDRarchitecture>
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/hdrarchitecture/sets/>
<http://www.architizer.com/en_us/firms/view/hdr-architecture/8916/>
From: Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr. [mailto:poleary1969 at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 5:37 PM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] LEED Core & Shell questions
i don't recall the page in the leed 3 manual right off hand but 1)
tenant spaces can be modeled as proposed type (hvac/water/lighting) if
there is a legally binding signed/or master lease agreement specifying
the proposed requirements that all tenants must adhere to and said lease
agreement is uploaded as part of the project documentation. i.e. lower
lighting lpd, increased hvac unit efficiencies/power, and water saving
fixtures.
and 2) there is an equest limit on the number of submeters a project
can have, and a core/shell project requires submeters for each tenant to
be separated out between process, lighting, and hvac, so the number of
meters can add up quickly if you're dealing with a sizeable core/shell
with many tenant spaces.
On 8/1/13 1:36 PM, Anthony Hardman wrote:
See below
Anthony Hardman, PE, LEED AP BD&C
Building Performance Analyst
The Green Engineer, Inc.
Sustainable Design Consulting
54 Junction Square Dr.
Concord, MA 01742
O: (978) 610-2801
C: (720) 840-7862
The Green Engineer, Inc. is a Certified B Corporation
From: Bishop, Bill [mailto:bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 7:11 AM
To: eQUEST Users List
Subject: [Equest-users] LEED Core & Shell questions
1. Should Tenant Spaces in LEED Core & Shell projects be modeled with
Appendix G systems for the Baseline, and for the Proposed as well if
there is no HVAC design?
-OR- Should Tenant Spaces be modeled as "unconditioned" in both the
Baseline and Proposed? (-OR- some other option?)
Finished tenant spaces should be modeled as designed with terminal units
placed on the tenant meter. If unfinished, it should follow Appendix G.
2. What is the intent/purpose of the requirement to model separate
electric meters for lighting, plug loads and process loads in the Tenant
Spaces? Should the cost from these meters be removed from the building
energy cost for EAc1 savings?
Download the spreadsheet
<http://www.usgbc.org/resources/cs-v20-eac1-spreadsheet> , it should
answer your questions.
3. IF HVAC systems are modeled in the Tenant Spaces, should this energy
be assigned to separate meters as well?
LEED Core & Shell Appendix 2
<http://www.usgbc.org/resources/appendix-2-core-and-shell-energy-modelin
g-guidelines> describes how the HVAC systems should be modeled for the
Core and Shell Building, but not for the Tenant Spaces. Appendix 2 also
describes the requirement for modeling separate meters.
Thank you,
Bill
William Bishop, PE, BEMP, BEAP, LEED AP | Pathfinder Engineers &
Architects LLP
Senior Energy Engineer
134 South Fitzhugh Street Rochester, NY 14608
T: (585) 325-6004 Ext. 114 F: (585) 325-6005
bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
www.pathfinder-ea.com <http://www.pathfinder-ea.com/>
P Sustainability - the forest AND the trees. P
_______________________________________________
Equest-users mailing list
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130806/2b0e3fd9/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9070 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130806/2b0e3fd9/attachment-0012.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 17410 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130806/2b0e3fd9/attachment-0013.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 15568 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130806/2b0e3fd9/attachment-0014.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8959 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130806/2b0e3fd9/attachment-0015.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8997 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130806/2b0e3fd9/attachment-0016.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2295 bytes
Desc: image006.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130806/2b0e3fd9/attachment-0017.jpeg>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list